D&D 5E (2014) Why you shouldn't allow optional rules.

[Sacrosanct]

I'm running a caster in one of the games I'm in, and I really can't see how casters overpower everyone. Firstly, you have a lot fewer slots to cast spells with, so each slot needs to matter. Secondly, a lot of the offensive spells require a to hit roll, which they didn't previously. So when you do decide to spend a precious spell slot, you might not even hit anyway, and have just wasted that slot.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I'm running a caster in one of the games I'm in, and I really can't see how casters overpower everyone. Firstly, you have a lot fewer slots to cast spells with, so each slot needs to matter. Secondly, a lot of the offensive spells require a to hit roll, which they didn't previously. So when you do decide to spend a precious spell slot, you might not even hit anyway, and have just wasted that slot.

I think GMFPG has it in his mind that the more options a class has, somehow makes it better. So, since a spellcaster has all these spells to choose from and has more "complexity", it makes them overpowered.

 

[Rhenny]

There are at least two components to a min/maxer.

First, it is building the character to achieve the most power for a specific build. Next there is the gameplay focus, which entails trying to optimize every action/decision in the game to net the "best" result. The first of the two isn't as bad as the 2nd. If someone makes a powerful build, but plays it in an interesting way, I usually don't have a problem. If someone tries to optimize every action/decision, there is a problem. To me, it just boils the game down to mechanics and numbers, and that's not what I like about my roleplaying experience. That type of min/maxing breaks immersion for me.

I love when players do sub-optimal things in game because it is more fun and it is based on their understanding of their characters ideals, bonds, personality traits and flaws.

I don't think you can be a full fledged min/maxer unless you practice both of these behaviors.

The worst offenders are the ones that min/max not only their attributes but their ideals, bonds, personality traits and flaws so that they can exploit them to be more powerful. That's a rare bird indeed. Thankfully, I've never had to play or DM one of those.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What do you mean by complexed?

Edit: Nevermind, I get what you are saying. To be blunt, you are looking in the wrong edition. Fighters were designed to do what they do best and that is fight. If you are looking for classes that have hundreds of bells and whistles then I will save you the trouble and tell you you won't find them here. If you want lots of choices then play a spellcaster or engage more with your character in game.

that is part of what I am afraid of... for years (2e, 3e, 3.5, pathfinder, Myth and magic) we have put up with games full of casters because everyone wants those bells and whistles... now comeing out of 4e we all really like fighters and martial rangers, and rogues and warlords all being very close if not on par with spellcasters... infact it was our fav part of 4e. If there is no way to duplicate that in 5e maybe your right, and it is the edition we can not play.

 

[Sacrosanct]

that is part of what I am afraid of... for years (2e, 3e, 3.5, pathfinder, Myth and magic) we have put up with games full of casters because everyone wants those bells and whistles... now comeing out of 4e we all really like fighters and martial rangers, and rogues and warlords all being very close if not on par with spellcasters... infact it was our fav part of 4e. If there is no way to duplicate that in 5e maybe your right, and it is the edition we can not play.

It depends on what you mean by "on par with". Having as many individual options (like spells)? probably not. Effective in overall game play? Sure they are.

 

[ExploderWizard]

that is part of what I am afraid of... for years (2e, 3e, 3.5, pathfinder, Myth and magic) we have put up with games full of casters because everyone wants those bells and whistles... now comeing out of 4e we all really like fighters and martial rangers, and rogues and warlords all being very close if not on par with spellcasters... infact it was our fav part of 4e. If there is no way to duplicate that in 5e maybe your right, and it is the edition we can not play.

As far as contributing to group success goes, the martial classes in my campaign are holding up very well against the spell casters. The battle master fighter has a lot of good options and the barbarian is a raging death machine.

The rogue is quite effective too even without the arcane trickster subclass to get spells.

Casters still get flashy effects (because MAGIC) but their overall power isn't higher than martial types because of it. The concentration rules and limited spell slots do a great job.

All the classes feel useful during encounters even though the bells & whistles are feel very different .

 

[Zardnaar]

See, here's the thing. Sharpshooter, on its own, isn't bad. You'll find that a lot of times, the sharpshooter builds rely heavily on the assumption that Bless, Archery style, and +X magic weapons are around. Some way of offsetting that -5 to hit. Its a combination of several vectors, all channeled towards one thing, and one thing only.

And the answer to this problem is absurdly simple. Hit the guy maintaining Bless - its a concentration spell. That's a weakness of the spellcasters in this game. Don't give out +X bows. Let it be so that that -5 is meaningful.

I wish I thought of that. Actually I did with the warcaster feat and bless up you have around a 80-90% chance of making your concentration roll or even more if you are proficient in con saves.

Advantage is more or less the same as a +5 bonus to a save. Con 14 +2, advantage +5, bless +2.5 is in effect a +9.5 on concentration rolls or 8.5 if you only have a 12 con. You need to hit a spellcaster for 22 damage or more to get the DC higher and odds are you will KO the caster eventually breaking concentration that way rather than having them flunk a concentration save.

 

[MechaPilot]

that is part of what I am afraid of... for years (2e, 3e, 3.5, pathfinder, Myth and magic) we have put up with games full of casters because everyone wants those bells and whistles... now comeing out of 4e we all really like fighters and martial rangers, and rogues and warlords all being very close if not on par with spellcasters... infact it was our fav part of 4e. If there is no way to duplicate that in 5e maybe your right, and it is the edition we can not play.

Use the 4e powers, because you absolutely can. There is a little bit of conversion that has to go on, but it's not particularly difficult to do so.

Or, you could come up with your own maneuvers system. I have done this. I have a couple of different versions: one that uses combo points, one that is roll-based, and I am still working on another one that is based on a resource more akin spell points.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Use the 4e powers, because you absolutely can. There is a little bit of conversion that has to go on, but it's not particularly difficult to do so.

.

That's actually a good idea. I mean, I don't play 4e and I admit I'm not too familiar with it, but I can easy see creating a fighter maneuver that takes the 4e Comeback daily into something like: "Spend a superiority die. Add the result of this die to your damage total, and heal an amount of HP of an equal amount."

 

[aramis erak]

I use multiclassing and feats in one campaign because I'm required to - they're standard for Adventurer's League play.

In the other, feats are allowed, but I've not made up my mind on multiclassing, and my players are not set on it...